The media's attention — and imagination — was engaged by an article that appeared in Nature (2 May), describing how rats can be trained to respond to intracranial stimulation of somatosensory and reward centres in the brain, and can then be guided by remote control around mazes or more natural environments. Controversy threatened to erupt over whether the animals should be dubbed 'robo-rats' (preferred by, among others, New Scientist in the UK) or 'ratbots' (http://www.CNN.com). But wider issues also came to the fore.

Many media sources reported the story in the context of the suggestion by the paper's authors (Sanjiv Talwar and colleagues from the State University of New York) that such rats could be equipped with tiny cameras and used for search-and-rescue missions, particularly in tight spaces, such as collapsed buildings. Roger Highfield, writing in the Telegraph (UK), used a typically celebratory (if not terribly accurate) headline: “Meet Robo Rat... He can find an earthquake victim at the touch of a whisker.” But some questioned whether the research was ethical. The New Scientist commented that “The idea of placing living creatures under direct human command is certainly raising concerns over the animals' welfare.” Even Talwar admitted that the work is “sort of creepy” (Telegraph).

Animal-rights campaigners were universally opposed to the work. Some scientists who were interviewed also had their doubts. CNN quotes Randy Gallistel of Rutgers University: “Without the gee-whizzery, without the remote control and so on, that this kind of thing was possible has been obvious for decades.” But Sandro Mussa-Ivaldi told the Washington Post that he “really likes the results ... this is the first time where you have control of a whole complex animal.”